You seem to insist that these things must be in opposition. However, they are one and the same.

In response to this, who do we find in a corner "spouting random nonsense" like "you must think you're a canon expert"?

Statement 1. This implies that you honestly believe that your opinion is always right. What is right and your opinion do indeed sometimes (often actually) cross, but you aren't right 100% of the time. No one is. To say that you are is to basically proclaim yourself a god, for that is the only way to be infallible.

Statement 2. The argument I was referring to was in the Plagueis thread, where you lost and eventually started spouting nonsense like "The EU is dead, long live the EU" and ignoring the things that MANY people told you. In fact between forums your kind of universally ignored, most in ALL won't engage you. I'm merely pointing this out because it isn't that you're always wrong because a lot of the time you're opinion is right, but its the way you lord it like no one but you could ever be right. Its the internet and frankly its a fictional universe we argue over, no one should take themselves THAT seriously. But your response to my statement only proclaims that you are beyond hope, so I go back to not engaging. I'll scroll over anything you say without reading and not respond to anything else you say. You're the kind of person that most people avoid anywhere, anytime, any way. Thank you for your time, I hope you take some of what I said to heart and realize that its not just me who thinks this way, PM was invented for a reason._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:16 am

Message

Arawn_FennKnight

Joined: 07 Apr 2011Posts: 219Location: Ekkaia

Caedus_16 wrote:

Statement 2. The argument I was referring to was in the Plagueis thread, where you lost

And here we come to the crux of the situation. Who says that I "lost"? Who decided this? Majority opinion? You? How did you get the power to choose "winners" and "losers"?

I think you mean that my position is deemed unacceptable because a number of people grouped together in a specific location don't agree with it. But this, of course, is only the well-known fallacy which asserts that the majority is always right. If you're unmoved by the obvious logical problem with this concept, history provides numerous counterexamples. But - as has been made painfully clear - you don't really care about counterexamples or evidence, do you?

If you think the majority position on Plagueis is somehow unassailable, you've studiously ignored all the evidence from the text which says otherwise. I presented this evidence in an exhaustive fashion; you looked the other way. That's not a "loss" on my part. It's you putting your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge evidence which threatens your position, while conspicuously presenting no evidence of your own. You're taking a case of textual ambiguity and trying to manufacture certainty which does not actually exist. But you haven't succeeded in transplanting this imaginary certainty into the text itself. The text remains the same, and its characters are no more omniscient than they were in the first place.

Caedus_16 wrote:

Statement 1. This implies that you honestly believe that your opinion is always right.

I never said anything like that at all. You may be experiencing a failure of reading comprehension. As usual, you're blatantly ignoring the topic at hand and the content of what I actually said, in favor of desperate and hallucinatory ad hominem assumptions which have no basis in reality. Is this what you call "winning" an argument?

To revisit the original claim: You're argumentative to be right, not to figure out what it really is. This seems to insist that I'm not trying to figure out "what it really is", but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, you're setting up an obviously fictitious dichotomy here, by implying that someone can be both right and wrong at the same time. If someone were to base their position on what they wanted the outcome to be, while ignoring any evidence to the contrary and the fact that the text itself didn't prove their position, that preferred outcome would hardly qualify as "what it really is". When you say "what it really is" you really mean "what I wanted it to be" or "what the majority has decided it must be". Because "what it really is" would have to be something defined by the textual evidence, as opposed to emotion, cliques, herd mentality, preexisting agendas, popularity or anything else external to the text._________________Hir yw'r dydd a hir yw'r nos, a hir yw aros Arawn.

Last edited by Arawn_Fenn on Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:47 pm; edited 6 times in total

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:23 am

Message

DannikJerrikoEUC Staff

Joined: 09 Nov 2011Posts: 1236Location: Nirn

Guys, hate to go all moderator on yo asses, but this has kind of grown out of hand. Not sure what the rules are about this kind of thing, but please either come to an agreement, or carry this on via PM._________________There's always a bigger fish - Qui Gon Jinn.

You shall learn that history is an intricate weaving of many events. No one thing can be understood without the proper context.